About Us

Name: J-GOP
Email: moreinfo@j-gop.org Biography
Name: KarenKataline
Email: Karen@KarenKataline.com
Name: Dan
Email: dan@dankopelman.com
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

No Liberal Bias, eh!

Posted by J-GOP on Tuesday, March 18, 2008 12:38:20 PM
Yesterday, my newspaper carrier accidently delivered a copy of the New York Slimes, ah, I mean Times to my doorstep, instead of my usual edition of The Wall Street Journal.
 
With the controversy surrounding Barack Obama's paster, Reverand Jeremiah Wright being aired on Fox News and Talk Radio on a 24 x 7 basis, I was curious to see how the Times spun the story in their ususal uber-Liberal way. I expected at least to see a postage sized article on page A10,000.
 
Nope. Not even a single sentence. It was as if the story didn't happen or even exist. No wonder Bill O'Reilly indicated on The O'Reilly Factor that approximately 36% of people polled didn't know about the story.
 
This story is going to be a test case for the old media versus the new media, and who will ultimately win. Can a collective liberal print and broadcast media effectively squash a hot news story solely becuase they will it? Or instead will new media sources such as Talk Radio, Cable News, and bloggers successfully bring down the likely candidate for the Democratic Party.
 
Stay tuned boys and girls for our next episode, of "Obama's Fall From Grace".
 
(And the liberals said that he couldn't be stopped!)
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why the "Wrighted" Obama Boat Will Ultimately Sink

Posted by J-GOP on Sunday, March 16, 2008 6:49:55 PM
One must admit that watching the liberal media's limited coverage of the many anti-American, anti-War, and Anti-White rantings of Reverand Jeremiah Wright, Barrack Obama's pastor of 20 years, is an interesting exercise in blatant media bias. If this story had been about John McCain attending a white separate church in Idaho, the story would have been carried on the front page of the New York Times (and correspondingly every mainstream news program) from now until the November general election.
 
As Charles Krauthammer put it, this story will be a growing "cancer" on the Obama campaign, growing each day until it consumes the candidate. I'm sure Hillary is privately and gleefully gloating in wanton anticipation of that day.
 
The reason for Obama's ultimate demise has less to do with his assocation with Reverand Wright than is does about his judgement. For any logical person that has a sincere love and appreciation for this country, such inflammatory language spoken during a sermon would cause such a person to get up, walk out, and never come back. To stay not only a member, but a close friend and active participant in this church must be viewed as one of poor judgement and full-fledged complicity.
 
Now it seems that Obama wants us to believe that: 1) this is the first time in 20 years he heard such language from his pastor, and 2) that his schedule was such that he never made it to a single Sunday service where this kind of vitriol was heard over the course of his 20 year membership.
 
Some of us may have been born at night, but not last night.
 
Instead, what will happen will be similar to the fate of Dan Rather when he ran the story about George Bush's Air National Guard Service. After that episode conservative bloggers were incented to prove Rather dead wrong. We all know what happened as a result of those efforts. Rather is now an obscure figure on an equally obsure cable network owned by a fellow-lefty, Mark Cuban.
 
Now, a number of conservative bloggers are probably screening every DVD that this church sells, to see if they can spot a single frame of Obama standing and clapping to one of the Reverand's rants. It's just a question of time before that happens, and when it does, Obama's campaign will be over, (to put it in Spitzer-like terminology)....in a New York Minute!
 
I guess Hillary won't have to strong-arm those Democrat Super Deligates with her investigative dirt after all!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

New York Chutspa

Posted by J-GOP on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:44:54 PM
The announcement of the sexual foibles of New York Governor Eliot Spitzer provides a great example of chutspa in action. He was the classic bully who relished in his ability to go after big business, Republicans, scoundrels, cheats, and his political opponents with a high and mighty moral attitude. He believed he was above everyone else, and the rules didn't apply to him.

The fact that he went after prostitution rings with such enthusiasm and was caught with a prostitute provides a real-life example of the fulillment of the saying: "The mill of the gods grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly fine". His years of lacerating people lives has finally come back to bite him in the behind. This is a rare glimpse of justice in action that we don't get a chance to see very often.
 
The interesting part of this episode is watching the liberal media call this entire episode "a tragedy". Funny but when it comes to a Democrat embroiled in a sexual scandal, the event is usually described as "a personal affair", "a lapse of judgement", "a family matter", or "a tragedy" and that "they should be given another chance to redeem themselves". On the other hand when a Republican is embroiled in a scandal the adjectives that are used are much harsher and not so forgiving. In these instances "the bum" should "be fired immediately", or harsh adjectives like "scoundrel", "pervert", "adulterer", or "a depraved, villainous or base miscreant" are frequently used. These terms were used when Republicans such as David Vitter, Larry Craig, Newt Gingrich, or Bill Livingston found themselves in similar compromising situations.
 
Unfortunately, when Spitzer finally resigns (if he does) the story will most likely disappear from view fairly quickly. After all, liberals want to wash the tarnish of a Democratic scandal off the front page as fast as they can. Unlike Republicans, who are typically the brunt of jokes and front page newsworthiness for six months after the fact, Eliot Spitzer will be a distant memory within the month.
 
That's too bad. For once, Republicans would like to see a prominent Democrat that's in trouble twist in the wind for just a little bit longer.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Jewish Repubicans Should Thank William F. Buckley

Posted by J-GOP on Sunday, March 09, 2008 1:54:06 PM
Jewish Republicans can thank William F. Buckley for making the Republican Party a "Big Tent". Let us all remember this great American for his contribution to making the party a better place for Jewish and other minority voters. Excerpts of this blog post come from the article in Jewish World Review, called "Bill Buckley and the Jews" by Jonathan Tobin:
 
Though much has changed in the 53 years since the debut of The National Review, most Jews are still, at the very least, reliable supporters of the Democrats, if not hard-core liberals. Most likely most have not noted the passing of its founder, William F. Buckley without emotion.

But aside from the focus on Buckley and his influence in the convserative movement, and his affiliation with Reagan-style Republicanism, there is one other aspect of his amazing career that deserves mention. It is the fact that as much as any other person, Bill Buckley cleared the way not only for a conservative movement where Jews would be welcomed, but that it was his leadership that set the stage for an American politics in which anti-Semitism was confined to the fever swamps of the far right and far left.

Buckley specifically chose to rid its ranks of people who espoused the sort of anti-Semitism that once was inescapable on the American right. As National Review took flight in the late 1950s, anti-Semitic writers found themselves on the outside looking in. So, too, did apologists for the extremist John Birch Society. Buckley made his journal, and by extension, the movement for which it served as an unofficial bible, off-limits to the anti-Semitism that was commonplace in the world in which he grew up.

Though he didn't always agree with all of its policies, Buckley was also a consistent supporter of Israel. A staunch anti-Communist, he was also deeply supportive of the movement to free Soviet Jewry at a time when many in this country (including some Jews) were loath to speak out because it might be interpreted as opposition to a policy of detente with Moscow.

Long after he chased the Birchers and its supporters out of NR, Buckley found himself forced to confront the issue again. When longtime colleagues Pat Buchanan and Joseph Sobran used their bully pulpits on the right to bash Israel and stigmatize Jews for their support for the state, it was again Buckley who took on the haters.Buckley repudiated Sobran's writing, which he labeled anti-Semitic, and pushed him off the magazine's masthead.

As the issue continued to percolate in the aftermath of the Persian Gulf war in December 1991, he devoted an entire issue of the magazine to an essay titled "In Search of Anti-Semitism" (which was also the title of the book he later published on the same subject), in which he took on Buchanan, who was preparing an insurgent run for the White House against the first President Bush.

His conclusion was damning: "I find it impossible to defend Pat Buchanan against the charge that what he did and said during the period under examination amounted to anti-Semitism, whatever it was that drove him to say and do it," Buckley wrote. Though Buchanan would continue to snipe away on television, it was largely Buckley's doing that he and others like him would do so from outside a perch in one of our two major parties rather than inside it.

By remaking the conservative movement in his own image, in which the emphasis was on anti-communism and a libertarian skepticism of government power, he ensured that it, and the Republican Party, which it came to dominate, would be a place where Jew-haters were unwelcome. In terms of practical politics, Buckley's rout of the anti-Semites made it possible for the sort of bipartisan consensus in favor of support for Israel that we now take for granted. He replaced the Buchanan-like world of American conservatism that existed before National Review with something that was not only more successful, but purged of Jew-hatred.

His was a political faith that most Jews never embraced, but as we survey a political spectrum in which our enemies are confined to the margins, we should all remember the unique achievements of this American original. May his memory be for a blessing for all who love liberty.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Yeshiva Terrorist Opens New Chapter for Israel

Posted by J-GOP on Friday, March 07, 2008 11:23:05 AM
If current reports are accurate, the terrorist that attacked the Mercaz Harav Yeshiva may have been a Palestinian citizen living in Israeli-controlled East Jerusalem. If proved true, this incident opens up an entirely new chapter for Israeli citizens and the country's war with Palestinian terrorists.
 
According to the Israeli blog, Yoni the Blogger:

"Residents of Jabel Mukaber neighborhood say the shooter who killed eight students at Jerusalem seminary Thursday was arrested by Israel four months ago, released two months later; neighbors claim he worked as driver at seminary. In the neighborhood in east Jerusalem, Palestinian residents hold Israeli ID cards that give them freedom of movement in Israel."

In additon, Yoni points out that this was a symbolic attack to Israelis making it akin to a non-Muslim going to Mecca and opening fire on Muslim worshipers at its most holy of sites:

"If you don't understand the ramifications of this targeted attack, let me give you some background Mercaz Harav Yeshiva is considered the leading national-religious yeshiva in Israel, with hundreds of elite students. Among its thousands of graduates are leading public figures including senior rabbis and IDF officers. It was founded in 1924 by mandatory Palestine's first chief rabbi, Rabbi Avraham Yitzhak Hacohen Kook. Its longtime head, Rabbi Avraham Shapira, died in September 2007."
 
The incident, which was the worst terrorist incident since a February 2004 bus bombing, could signal an expansion of the region's perpetual cycle of violence and retaliation. In addition, if it is proved that this terrorist had a blue Israeli ID tag, then this incident opens up a entirely new chapter for Israel, placing every Palestinian citizen living in Israel at additional scruitiny for the potential of terrorism.
 
The question now for Israelis is what action will Prime Minister Olmert take in the face of this incident to prevent it from happening again? If he does nothing, Israelis may not sit idly by. According to Yoni:
 
"If Olmert does not get his act together and respond like a real Prime Minister to the daily rocket attacks and today's murderes at Mercaz Harav Yeshiva, bad things will happen."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Beware the Sweet Siren Song of Obama

Posted by J-GOP on Tuesday, March 04, 2008 12:39:43 PM

We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude. His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of "Change" or that he says he will be a “Uniter”.

The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham had charisma and both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions. On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions and the results were catastrophic. Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans out there feeling just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, the real story is what happens when it hits shore.

Here are just some of the statements and votes that define Barack Obama:

He voted against banning partial birth abortion.

He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.

He supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.

In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.

He says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.

He admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.

He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung Il and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.

He opposed the Patriot Act.

The first bill he signed that was passed was for campaign finance reform.

He voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.

He supports universal health-care.

He voted yes on providing habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees.

He supports granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants.

He supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.

he voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.

He voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.

he wants to make the minimum wage a "living wage".

He voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.

He opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.

He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.

He voted No on repealing the "Death" Tax.

He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.

Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.

He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.

If you are like most Americans that recognize after examining what he stands for is not truly in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great Country. At this point, whomever your first choice was for the Republican nominee, your vote for John McCain should be for keeping a conservative Supreme Court. If Barack Obama wins, Republicans will lose the Supreme Court for the next 30 years.
 
If that happens, one can only envision the kind of Supreme Court and correspondingly secular-progressive (read Socialist) country that Barack Obama has in mind for us all.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Mahmoud Abbas No Different From Yassir Arafat

Posted by J-GOP on Monday, March 03, 2008 12:43:05 PM
It seems as if the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas continues to follow the playbook of his mentor of forty years, Yassir Arafat--talk peace in English and 'armed resistance' (synonymous with terror) in Arabic. Only this time, he threw in some bragging about how the PLO trained Hizballah in its leadership of all the other 'resistance' groups. This confirms what IRIS has been saying for years--that the Global Jihad is an allied force:

According to JBlog Central, PA President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday said that he does not rule out returning to the path of armed "resistance" against Israel and took pride in the fact that he had been the first to fire on Israel and that his organization had trained Hizbullah.

In an interview with the Jordanian daily al-Dustur, Abbas said that he was opposed to an armed struggle against Israel - for the time being.

"At this present juncture, I am opposed to armed struggle because we cannot succeed in it, but maybe in the future things will be different," he said.

The PA president also expressed pride both in himself and in his organization, Fatah, for trailblazing the path of resistance.

"I had the honor of firing the first shot in 1965 and of being the one who taught resistance to many in the region and around the world; what it's like; when it is effective and when it isn't effective; its uses, and what serious, authentic and influential resistance is," Abbas said.

"It is common knowledge when and how resistance is detrimental and when it is well timed," he added. "We (Fatah) had the honor of leading the resistance and we taught resistance to everyone, including Hizbullah, who trained in our military camps."
 
Every Jew should listen, hear, and take to heart this latest of Abu Mazen's truth-telling!  The sooner the IDF moves against the PA to shut down this terror apparatus in the heartland, arresting Abu Mazen in the process, the sooner all Jews will begin to know some real peace.  A hard struggle is in the offing, and so it must begin with every advantage Israel can muster.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Pro-Palestinian Positions a Warning to Jewish Voters

Posted by J-GOP on Thursday, February 28, 2008 8:21:02 PM
Jewish voters need to take note of two separate stories that are circulating the Internet that demonstrate Senator Barack Obama would be a Pro-Palestinian President should he ascend to the office. Senator Obama's views on Israel and the Middle East should certainly raise serious doubts and questions in Jewish voter's minds about the true leanings of Senator Obama on these important issues.
First, there was presidential candidate Ralph Nader's appearance on the NBC news program "Meet the Press". During his interview, Nader said that Sen. Obama had reversed his positions on Israel. Nader said Sen. Obama's "better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself" and that Sen. Obama was "pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate" and "during the state Senate."

Sen. Obama has caught criticism for pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel statements and sentiments before. In March 2007, Sen. Obama was criticized for saying that "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinians." Obama has also been criticized for stocking his campaign with several controversial advisors including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice all who have taken anti-Israeli stances in the past.
 
Then there's an article that appeared in today's edition of The Jewish Press indicating Obama served as a paid director on the board of a nonprofit organization that granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a "catastrophe." The article goes on to indicate that Obama has also reportedly spoken at fundraisers for Palestinians living in what the United Nations terms refugee camps.
 
In 2001, the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based nonprofit that describes itself as a group helping the disadvantaged, provided a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN. The Fund provided a second grant to AAAN for $35,000 in 2002. Obama was a director of the Woods Fund board from 1999 to Dec. 11, 2002, according to the Fund’s website. According to tax filings, Obama received compensation of $6,000 per year for his service in 1999 and 2000. The $40,000 grant from the Woods Fund to AAAN constituted about a fifth of the group’sreported grants for 2001, also according to tax filings. The $35,000 Woods Fund grant in 2002 made up about one-fifth of AAAN’s reported grants for that year as well.

Concerning Obama’s role in funding AAAN, the co-founder of the Arab group, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, who is a harsh critic of Israel and reportedly worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization, claimed he "never heard of the Woods Fund until it popped up on a bunch of blogs a few months ago." He terminated the interview with The Jewish Press when pressed further about his links with Obama.
 
So despite all the verbal distancing that Obama has made recently about his affiliation with the anti-semitic Rev. Farrakan, "facts are damned things" as the old saying goes. These facts should give prospective Democratic Jewish voters a great deal of pause come November.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Message to Obama: Don't Count on that Jewish Vote Just Yet

Posted by J-GOP on Wednesday, February 27, 2008 4:30:40 PM
According to an article from Adam Smith in the St. Petersburg Times, Democrats are fretting over the apparent divisions within their party, and the rift is clearly apparent with Liberal Jews. 

"In the 66-some-odd years I've been doing this, this is the saddest election I've ever worked in,' said Ginger Grossman, a prominent Democratic organizer in Miami-Dade County, who says she hears countless Jewish liberals tell her they won't vote for Obama if he wins the nomination.  'It's outrageous, and it's breaking my heart. I know it's because he's black, or I feel it is,' said Grossman, a Clinton supporter who said she would also vote enthusiastically for Obama. 'The worst of it is when they start calling him a Muslim and say, "Why aren't they using his name, Hussein?" I pray God it can be overcome. It's devastating, but I'm hoping I can change it.'"
So does this mean that liberal Jews might turn away from the Democrat party come November if Obama is the nominee? Many political pundits think this might happen for two reasons:
 
The first, has to do with Reverand Farrakhan's support for Obama where he spoke before 20,000 followers at McCormick Place in Chicago and said: "He (Obama) is the hope of the entire world that America will change.  A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."

The second has to do with the clear record of support that Senator McCain has had for the State of Israel over the many years he has been in the Senate. Could it be that many Jews feel that with a middle name of "Hussein" and a Muslim father, that Obama's support for the Jewish state could be as somewhat questionable should he ascend to the Presidency? Only time and his comments on the political trail will tell.
 
But one thing is clear. The seeds of doubt remain in the minds of many Jewish voters. Despite what pollsters may say at this early stage, the truth will become clearly apparent when Jews get behind that voting curtain and pull the lever either to the left or to the right.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nader Calls Out Obama's "Pro-Palestinian" Past

Posted by J-GOP on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 11:40:54 AM
After remarks made by Ralph Nader Sunday on "Meet the Press," Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks said, "Ralph Nader added to the debate on Senator Obama's views on Israel and the Middle East and raised serious doubts and questions about the true leanings of Senator Obama on these important issues."

During his interview on "Meet the Press," Nader said that Sen. Obama had reversed his positions on Israel. Nader said Sen. Obama's "better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself" and that Sen. Obama was "pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate" and "during the state Senate."

Sen. Obama has caught criticism for pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel statements and sentiments before. In March 2007, Sen. Obama was criticized for saying that "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinians." Obama has also been criticized for stocking his campaign with several controversial advisors including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice.

"People should be very skeptical of Barack Obama's shaky Middle East policies. When a long-time political activist like Ralph Nader, with a well-documented, anti-Israel bias, claims that Senator Obama shares this anti-Israel bias, that is alarming," said Matt Brooks. "If Senator Obama supports Ralph Nader's policies, which consistently condemn Israel's right to defend itself against terrorism, and if Sen. Obama has only reversed his positions to run for president, it once again raises serious questions about his grasp of the geo-political realities of the Middle East and puts into doubt his commitment to the safety and security of Israel. These are important questions we in the community will be asking."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Takin' Out the Trash

Posted by J-GOP on Sunday, February 24, 2008 7:00:58 PM
Whether it was the Israeli Defense Force, the Mossad, or someone on the inside of Hezbollah, the assasination of Imad Mughniyeh is something worthy of praise since it will certainly deliver a blow to the Islamic terrorist group.
 
Mughniyeh was responsible for the terrorist group's overseas operations including the assistance it provided to Palestinian terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He was also directly responsible for many terrorist acts including the 1983 bombings of the US Embassy and Marine barracks in Beirut, the 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center that killed 85 people, the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in that same city two years earlier, and more recently, the abduction of the two IDF reservists that sparked the 34-day Second Lebanon War.
 
His death is a blow to Hezbollah operations and a boost to Israel's security since any large-scale attack he might have been planning  - possibly in response to the air strike alleged conducted by Israel on a Syrian nuclear facility in Syria in September 2007 - is likely now thwarted. It also sends a message to any terrorist attempting to seek shelter in another Arab country that Israel will hunt them down wherever they may be living.
 
So here's to taking out the trash. It won't be friendly virgins that Mughniyeh will be finding on the other side, but instead a red guy with horns and a three-pointed pitchfork.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain Expected To Do Well with Jewish Voters

Posted by J-GOP on Thursday, February 21, 2008 5:40:18 PM

Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, has one singular focus: how to lure Jewish Democrats into supporting the Republican party and the presumptive nominee, John McCain come November.

According to Brooks, “We feel there is a strong compelling case as to why John McCain is better than either one of the Democratic candidates on the issues and the policy differences that Jewish voters care most about,” he told New Jersey Jewish News.
 
Brooks said McCain needed to make Jews “feel comfortable about voting Republican. Joe Lieberman has embraced and endorsed the candidacy of John McCain, and that sends a powerful signal. People like safety in numbers. People like to feel comfortable with knowing they are not out there all alone in the Republican Party.”

Bolstering that hope with a press release, the RJC sent out an excerpt of McCain’s Feb. 7 speech to the Conservative Political Action Committee, attacking both of his potential Democratic rivals, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, for their policies on Iran.
McCain said neither Democrat would “recognize and seriously address the threat posed by an Iran with nuclear ambitions to our ally, Israel, and the region. I intend to make unmistakably clear to Iran we will not permit a government that espouses the destruction of the State of Israel as its fondest wish….”
 
Democrat attacks notwithstanding, Brooks said he believes McCain will be able to attract moderate Jewish voters, even as he caters to unhappy right-wing Republicans view him as not conservative enough. Historically, "George Bush increased his share of the Jewish vote from 19 percent to 26 or 27 percent from 2000 to 2004 being pro-life and supportive of the war in Iraq,” two issues that Jews have historically been opposed to, Brooks said.

“Part of McCain’s job is making sure that conservatives turn out and don’t stay home,” said Brooks. “Except for the fringe, the fact that he will be running against Clinton or Obama will be enough to motivate the conservative base. They may hold their nose. He may not be their ideal candidate. But all he has got to do is make sure they turn out.”

Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Feminism and The Democratic Spousal Albatross

Posted by J-GOP on Wednesday, February 20, 2008 1:58:35 PM
Sometimes it seems that the Democrats would have a better chance of getting to the White House if they chose single candidates rather than married ones because of the comments, actions, and speeches made by their spouses. Let's take a brief look back through history:
 
1992: Hilliary Clinton makes her infamous remark equating stay-at-home moms with "baking cookies" paralleling Tammy Wynette's popular hit song with the comment, "I guess I could have stood by my man". The remark brings howls of protest from working mothers across the country.
 
2004: Teresa Heinz's speeches to foreign audiences in Spanish and French diminishing U.S. standing in the world as a result of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars is construed by voters as anti-American, populist, and elitist. The sour impression of Heinz is one of the factors that contributes to John Kerry's election loss.
 
2008 - Michell Obama says that as a result of her husband's run for the Presidency, for the "first time" she is proud of her country. The remark is construed as historically "short-sighted" and a verbal slam against her country.
 
Why does it seem that Democratic spouses are the only ones that tend to embarass the candidate? When was the last time you heard Republican spouses like Pat Nixon, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, Laura Bush, Janet Huckabee, Ann Romney or Cindy McCain say anything can could be used to embarass their husbands? Is this indicative of values, upbringing, or a better understanding of their role in a presidential campaign?
 
The reason these issues don't occur on the Repbulican side is simple. Faith, Family Values, and a lack of the "Feminist Doctrine" that has historically been a big part of the Democrat party. With the healthy dose of feminism doled out in college, spouses of Democrat candidates feel that they are "entitled" to an equal share of the speeches, input, and comments made during the Presidential campaign. After countless speeches, the odds that a left-leaning feminist spouse is going to put their foot in their mouth and say something that will embarass their husband, country, military, or big corporations is just a question of time.
 
We're seeing that in play right now with Michelle Obama. Stay tuned for more embarassing remarks as the campaign ensues.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Hooray for Sarkozy!

Posted by J-GOP on Monday, February 18, 2008 4:28:28 PM
After years of dealing with the pompous, anti-American statements made by far-left French leader Jacques Chirac, the pro-American moderate leader Nicolas Sarkozy is a breadth of fresh air. Here is a an article that appeared on the liberal leaning news source (ugh) Reuters:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, facing a tide of criticism over his call for schoolchildren to "adopt" Jewish child victims of the Holocaust, hit back on Friday saying France had to raise children "with open eyes".

In a speech praising faith that also drew fire from secularists, Sarkozy told France's Jewish community on Wednesday that every 10-year-old schoolchild should be "entrusted with the memory of a French child victim of the Holocaust". The proposal unleashed a storm of protest from teachers, psychologists and his political foes who said it would unfairly burden children with the guilt of previous generations and some could be traumatized by identifying with a Holocaust victim.

More than 11,100 French Jewish children were deported from France to Auschwitz and other Nazi death camps in eastern Europe during the German World War Two occupation. "The emotional burden can have negative consequences for a child who is developing," Gilles Moindrot, general secretary of the Snuipp-FSU trade union which represents most primary school teachers, said in a statement. "One can not place on a child of 11 the responsibility for what happened back then." The EMDH children's rights group said: "No educational project should be constructed on death."

But Sarkozy, speaking in Perigueux in central France, brushed off the uproar."It is ignorance that produces abominable situations. It is not knowledge," he said in a speech. "Let us make our children, children with open eyes who are not complacent."
 
Vive la France!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why Don’t Jews Like the Christians Who Like Them?

Posted by J-GOP on Monday, February 18, 2008 12:10:12 AM
Enclosed is an interesting article taken from Volconvo.com, a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and new-based topics:

In the United States, the two groups that most ardently support Israel are Jews and evangelical and fundamentalist Christians. Jewish support is easy to explain, but why should certain Christians, most of them politically quite conservative, be so devoted to Israel? There is a second puzzle: despite their support for a Jewish state, evangelical and fundamentalist Christians are disliked by many Jews. And a third: a large fraction of African-Americans are hostile to Israel and critical of Jews, yet Jewish voters regard blacks as their natural allies.

The evidence about evangelical attitudes is clear. In 2006, a Pew survey found that evangelical Christians were more favourable toward Israel than the average American was—and much more sympathetic than either mainline Protestants or secularists. In another survey, evangelical Christians proved much likelier than Catholics, Protestants, or secular types to back Israeli control of Jerusalem, endorse Israeli settlements on the West Bank, and take Israel’s side in a Middle Eastern dispute. (Among every religious group, those who are most traditional are most supportive of Israel. The most orthodox Catholics and Protestants, for instance, support Israel more than their modernist colleagues do.)

Evangelical Christians have a high opinion not just of the Jewish state but of Jews as people. That Jewish voters are overwhelmingly liberal doesn’t seem to bother evangelicals, despite their own conservative politics. Yet Jews don’t return the favour: in one Pew survey, 42% of Jewish respondents expressed hostility to evangelicals and fundamentalists. As two scholars from Baruch College have shown, a much smaller fraction—about 16%—of the American public has similarly antagonistic feelings toward Christian fundamentalists.
 
The reason that conservative Christians—opposed to abortion and gay marriage and critical of political liberalism—can feel kindly toward Jewish liberals and support Israel so fervently is rooted in theology. One finds among fundamentalist Protestants a doctrine called dispensationalism.
 
The dispensationalist outlook, which began in early-nineteenth-century England, sees human history as a series of seven periods, or dispensations, in each of which God deals with man in a distinctive way. The first, before Adam’s fall, was the era of innocence; the second, from Adam to Noah, the era of conscience; the third, from Noah to Abraham, of government; the fourth, from Abraham to Moses, of patriarchy; the fifth, from Moses to Jesus, of Mosaic law; and the sixth, from Jesus until today, of grace. The seventh and final dispensation, yet to come, will be the Millennium, an earthly paradise.

For dispensationalists, the Jews are God’s chosen people. For the Millennium to come, they must be living in Israel, whose capital is Jerusalem; there, the Temple will rise again at the time of Armageddon. On the eve of that final battle, the Antichrist will appear—probably in the form of a seeming peacemaker. Fundamentalists differ over who the Antichrist will be (at one time he was thought to be Nero, at another time the papacy, and today a few have suggested the secretary-general of the UN), but dispensationalists agree that he will deceive the people, occupy the Temple, rule in the name of God, and ultimately be defeated by the Messiah.
 
Therefore, many dispensationalists believe that how a person treats Israel will profoundly influence his eternal destiny.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1234567891011Next »